GEC/EGC 250.121 Exception 2014 NEC

[bphgravity]

..It tells what we must do and what we can't do, it doesn't tell us everything to do.

So you agree the NEC is both a permissive and a prohibitive code?

If the NEC tells us stuff we can't do, how is it just a permissive code?

 

[iwire]

I can't, there isn't one.

So you will be signing my final inspection card right?

Do you believe that CMP 2 would agree with that, citing this specific example?

That is entirely irrelevant, that aside I don't know what they would think.

I hope they would expect the code to be enforced as written and not as someone feels it should be enforced.

 

[GoldDigger]

So you will be signing my final inspection card right?



That is entirely irrelevant, that aside I don't know what they would think.

I hope they would expect the code to be enforced as written and not as someone feels it should be enforced.

I think that the CMP would expect the AHJs to enforce what they (the CMP) think the words they wrote mean, not what somebody derived from a rigorous semantic analysis of what they actually wrote.
But that would be wishful thinking on their part.

 

[iwire]

Let's take a common one that has been discussed on this Forum in the past. Section 210.52(F) states at least one receptacle outlet shall be installed in areas designated for the installation of laundry equipment. Section 210.11(C)(2) states this one required receptacle shall be supplied by a 20-ampere branch circuit. So to comply with the code, I install a single receptacle in the laundry room and supply it with a 20A branch circuit. I have met the code.

Nowhere in the code does it say I can't install as many other branch circuits or receptacles in that room as I want once the minimum requirement has been met.. So, does this mean the code permits additional receptacles to be installed in the laundry room and supplied from perhaps a 15A branch circuit that also supplies other outlets not in the laundry room?

It seems you are saying that this section

2011 NEC

210.11(C)(2) Laundry Branch Circuits. In addition to the number
of branch circuits required by other parts of this section, at
least one additional 20-ampere branch circuit shall be provided
to supply the laundry receptacle outlet(s) required by
210.52(F). This circuit shall have no other outlets.

Somehow prohibits a 15 amp circuit from also supplying that area.

If that is so does that section also prohibit that area from being supplied by a 30 amp circuit?

 

[ActionDave]

So you agree the NEC is both a permissive and a prohibitive code?

If the NEC tells us stuff we can't do, how is it just a permissive code?

I agree that some of the rules are prohibitive. That does not change the fact that anything the code does not prohibit is allowed.

 

[ActionDave]

I think that the CMP would expect the AHJs to enforce what they (the CMP) think the words they wrote mean, not what somebody derived from a rigorous semantic analysis of what they actually wrote.
But that would be wishful thinking on their part.

This is what makes Charlie's Rule one of the greatest phrases ever penned.

It's also why the CMPs should be very deliberative about the rules they approve. It's a tough job no doubt. The fact that it's so tough is the reason they should stay away from any issues that fall into the realm of design.

 

[bphgravity]

The NEC contains both permissive rules and prohibitive rules. It stands to reason that when a method or practice is not permitted or prohibited by the code, final approval needs to be based on a case-by-case basis with consideration of all the specific conditions of the installation. To believe the code is only prohibitive for rules unstated is too restrictive and limits practices that may not have been conceived by the CMP or associated product standard. To believe the code is only permissive for rules unstated is too liberal and does not allow the AHJ to use reasonable discretion to reject an installation based on all the facts.

Discretional authority is prevalent in all levels of government and all forms of law, such as statutes or codes. There is a concept in statutory law, which is the manner in which many states adopt the NEC and other construction standards that is called, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). The phrase indicates that items not on a list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. When something is mentioned expressly in a statute it leads to the presumption that the things not mentioned are excluded. This is an aid to construction of statutes. The concept is simple. Sometimes rules unstated can be permitted, but sometimes rules unstated are not permitted.

Take for example a city's zoning ordinance. Let's assume the ordinance outlines permitted uses for land and prohibited uses for land (similar to 3XX.10 and 3XX.12 of the NEC). If someone decides to use land in a manner the ordinance does not explicitly permit, the city can prohibit the use even if that use is not explicitly included in the prohibited list. This type of thing happens all the time.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

Discretional authority is prevalent in all levels of government and all forms of law, such as statutes or codes. There is a concept in statutory law, which is the manner in which many states adopt the NEC and other construction standards that is called, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). The phrase indicates that items not on a list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. ...

The law dictionaries say that only applies to other items of the same class. For example "no dogs allowed" does not mean lions and tigers are not allowed.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The NEC contains both permissive rules and prohibitive rules. It stands to reason that when a method or practice is not permitted or prohibited by the code, final approval needs to be based on a case-by-case basis with consideration of all the specific conditions of the installation. ...

In general if the code does not say you can't do it, the AHJ is on very shaky legal ground to prohibit it.

 

[George Stolz]

So, why then do we need a 3XX.10 section for all the wiring methods and not just a 3XX.12 section? If the code is 100% permissive as you are all claiming, it would only need to tell us what is not permitted. No?

Correct. Their misunderstanding of the nature of the code has prompted rejections to the proposals to delete the 3xx.10 sections from the code. Was it the 2008 cycle it was last attempted and failed? As I recall, it was for "field clarity's sake" that they were rejected and the 3xx.10/3xx.12 sections have had to be tweaked repeatedly to make it work right to eliminate weird gaps and overlaps.

Bryan, what you described as a code violation is permitted and probably even supported by panel statements on the section.

 

[George Stolz]

Also: thanks for the lesson on latin, but the writers of the NEC can barely comprehend their MOS, so I doubt it's relevant to our discussion. If a new user does not come to the Code with the understanding that when the Code did not exist there were no prohibitions, and that now the world of possibilities is reduced by what the code prohibits, then they are immediately on the wrong path, believing inspectors can make up their own rules on any issue "because the Code does not expressly permit that."

 

[Smart $]

...
Discretional authority is prevalent in all levels of government and all forms of law, such as statutes or codes. There is a concept in statutory law, which is the manner in which many states adopt the NEC and other construction standards that is called, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). The phrase indicates that items not on a list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. When something is mentioned expressly in a statute it leads to the presumption that the things not mentioned are excluded. This is an aid to construction of statutes. The concept is simple. Sometimes rules unstated can be permitted, but sometimes rules unstated are not permitted.
...

While that may be true for actual law, Code is not law nor is it written as such. Code is adopted by law. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Johnnybob]

Simple enough. If it is not expressly prohibited, it is allowed!
art.90.5 (A) & (B) pretty well cover that!

 

[bphgravity]

Simple enough. If it is not expressly prohibited, it is allowed!
art.90.5 (A) & (B) pretty well cover that!

Then why does the code need to tell us what is permitted if everything is already permitted, when not expressly prohibited? I wouldn't need to know what "shall be permitted" or "shall not be required" if everything is automatically permitted as a rule.

Again, if mandatory rules of the code are both permissive and prohibitive (Shall or Shall Not), it only stands to reason that unstated or other issues not covered by the code could be permitted or could be prohibited on a case by case basis with all the circumstances of the installation taken into consideration. This authority is granted to the AHJ and not the user of the code. Section 110.2 makes that pretty clear...

 

[Michael15956]

Currently installing a Service Rated 200amp transfer switch to an existing residential service in a finished basement and the local inspector will not allow the EGC to do double duty as a GEC only because the State of Ohio has not adopted the 2014 Code. He will not listen to any practical reasons for such an install.

I complain to his supervisor the AHJ, and he totally supported the inspector reason.

I would like to complain more but I think it would be useless.

 

[tomito]

Sure. The NEC has many provisions for minimum compliance. But what if someone wants to exceed the minimum requirement with non-conforming practices?

Let's take a common one that has been discussed on this Forum in the past. Section 210.52(F) states at least one receptacle outlet shall be installed in areas designated for the installation of laundry equipment. Section 210.11(C)(2) states this one required receptacle shall be supplied by a 20-ampere branch circuit. So to comply with the code, I install a single receptacle in the laundry room and supply it with a 20A branch circuit. I have met the code.

Nowhere in the code does it say I can't install as many other branch circuits or receptacles in that room as I want once the minimum requirement has been met.. So, does this mean the code permits additional receptacles to be installed in the laundry room and supplied from perhaps a 15A branch circuit that also supplies other outlets not in the laundry room?

If the NEC is 100% permissive, it would have to prohibit everything not intended by a minimum code requirement. If the NEC is 100% prohibitive, it would have to give permission for every possible scenario. Shouldn't we consider this on a case-by-case basis?

That is, there are a few instances where the code intends something to not be permitted even though it is not explicitly expressed as such?

From what I understand... yes, you can install another 15 A circuit for some outlets and a "40 A" circuit for the dryer and the number of circuits you need there if you already comply with the 20 A circuit rule.

 

[peter d]

Then why does the code need to tell us what is permitted if everything is already permitted, when not expressly prohibited? I wouldn't need to know what "shall be permitted" or "shall not be required" if everything is automatically permitted as a rule.

Again, if mandatory rules of the code are both permissive and prohibitive (Shall or Shall Not), it only stands to reason that unstated or other issues not covered by the code could be permitted or could be prohibited on a case by case basis with all the circumstances of the installation taken into consideration. This authority is granted to the AHJ and not the user of the code. Section 110.2 makes that pretty clear...

You couldn't be more wrong about this. If the NEC had a rule for every "shall not" possibility, it would be the size of a telephone book.

 

[Smart $]

You couldn't be more wrong about this. If the NEC had a rule for every "shall not" possibility, it would be the size of a telephone book.

Really...!!!! That small, eh. :blink:


Had you known the size of the telephone book where I live, you would not have made that comment... but the double irony of it all on my end is temporarily overwhelming... :rotflmao:

FWIW even a local third-party-advertising-company-published, three-county phonebook is smaller than the NEC... and three fourths of it's pages are advertisements. :lol:

 

[shortcircuit2]

Currently installing a Service Rated 200amp transfer switch to an existing residential service in a finished basement and the local inspector will not allow the EGC to do double duty as a GEC only because the State of Ohio has not adopted the 2014 Code. He will not listen to any practical reasons for such an install.

I complain to his supervisor the AHJ, and he totally supported the inspector reason.

I would like to complain more but I think it would be useless.

Well, for now you will have to relocate the GEC to the transfer switch. Also separate the neutrals and grounds in the panel.

 

[peter d]

Really...!!!! That small, eh. :blink:


Had you known the size of the telephone book where I live, you would not have made that comment... but the double irony of it all on my end is temporarily overwhelming... :rotflmao:

FWIW even a local third-party-advertising-company-published, three-county phonebook is smaller than the NEC... and three fourths of it's pages are advertisements. :lol:

All right, you know what I mean. :roll: Back when people still had land lines.